Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners - Page 3

Nubclear · January 14, 2003, 23:31

The US hasn't really seen the horrors of war on its own soil. When war comes to your homeland things become VERY different. TV just doesnt do justice.

Edit: Got rid of that ugly quote box.

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Jbeezus, are you mad? We never saw the carnage, when we lost, what was it, nearly 300 thousand men?

Everyone else lost more, relative to their pop. We lost 60 000 with a pop. a tenth of yours, and we were all the way across the ocean from the fighting. Never mind how light you got off in WWI...

DinoDoc · January 14, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
We're just humouring you.

I think that you might have misunderstood what I was talking about.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
The US hasn't really seen the horrors of war on its own soil. When war comes to your homeland things become VERY different.

You don't really know much history, do you?

TCO · January 14, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

We try to be nice to you, though. You literally don't bother. And people are starting to get to the point of wondering if we do need you or not...

Come on Kitty. We're not going to only elect Democrats cause you all liked Clinton and Carter better than Reagan and Bush. The countries have their differences. Deal with it. You all haven't followed us everywhere anyway. No Vietnam involvement, etc.

If you are kvetching about the trade stuff (lumber, etc.) you've got my sympathy. I think we need a firmer free-trade agreement. But you know how trade politics are...

Alexander's Horse · January 14, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Alexander's Horse, this reads like a liberal/leftist wish list. The question really should be is why the rest of the West shifted so strongly to the left after WWII while the US did not.

Yet more proof of my point - only in America are most of these issues seen as liberal/leftist. They are mainstream in the rest of the Western world.

Dauphin · January 14, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think that you might have misunderstood what I was talking about.

?

TCO · January 14, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Yet more proof of my point - only in America are most of these issues seen as liberal/leftist. They are mainstream in the rest of the Western world.

So? Those guys are wrong. What do you expect. They all watch our movies, follow our trends, etc. We must be doing something right. Why should we change and be all namby-pamby.

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So?

So, have fun. Most people want to have friends...

But do whatever you want. It's nice to see you shooting yourselves in the foot.

Nubclear · January 14, 2003, 23:39

This thread is taking off...

Anyway, its precisely those comments that alientate you from the rest of the world.

Edit: Of course, referring to the rest of the world. Also, I concur with Frogger

Main_Brain · January 14, 2003, 23:41

Mhh the last War on US-Soil was.. mhh Alamo? the Mexican-US conflict? I dont think that really compares to the Damage of Industrial Warfare spread since WWI ?

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Very much hindsight. Sure, the right may have exaggerated the threat. But the left did not predict the fall. Very, very 20/20 hindsight. Read some stuff from the 70's. Heck even look at the 70's red liberation movements in Europe, etc. Different mood back than.

Yes, and they were wrong. Red menace was paranoia, and the thought that a few red brigades in Europe would finish the job were just plain stupid.

Stalin died in what, 1953? The Sovs were never the same...

The Vagabond · January 14, 2003, 23:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
That must seem odd since you are "number 1". I mean, when the Romans and the Brits were on top people wanted to copy them. Why don't people want to copy American laws, values, government policies?

In the times of the Romans and the Brits no second-tier power could conveniently rejoice under the umbrella of the world leader as they do nowadays.

Sava · January 14, 2003, 23:43

There's a huge difference between hearing news reports about soldiers dying in a foreign war, and say, seeing your brothers, sisters, and 500 people of your village slaughtered by Nazis (like my grandfather). Europe suffered. It's one thing to say that, but many Americans (especially on these forums) can't seem to comprehend what that means. I still maintain that America needs to experience the horror of war first hand before it changes things. I don't want war, but its obvious that too many ignorant, selfish conservatives are quick to send somebody elses' children to die in a foreign country so they can save a few cents on a gallon of gas

GP: I don't know what reality you are living in. All throughout the Vietnam era, Veterans would speak out against the war upon returning. Even in the Bush administration, the only Veteran, Colin Powell, is cautious about going to war. The VFW has publically come out against action in Iraq.

Dauphin · January 14, 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Mhh the last War on US-Soil was.. mhh Alamo? the Mexican-US conflict? I dont think that really compares to the Damage of Industrial Warfare spread since WWI ?

The last big one was the American Civil War.

TCO · January 14, 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Yes, and they were wrong. Red menace was paranoia, and the thought that a few red brigades in Europe would finish the job were just plain stupid.

Stalin died in what, 1953? The Sovs were never the same...

You're missing my main point. I'm not saying that the red brigades would take over Europe. But that the buzz was different. Very few predicted the collapse of cimmunism by 1990. Not those on the left either. They said we needed to learn to live with the Sovs and expected them to be around for a while.
The mood in 1979 was one of a real fear of nuclear war and of being backed into one. By 1985 that was gone.

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Come on Kitty. We're not going to only elect Democrats cause you all liked Clinton and Carter better than Reagan and Bush. The countries have their differences. Deal with it. You all haven't followed us everywhere anyway. No Vietnam involvement, etc.

If you are kvetching about the trade stuff (lumber, etc.) you've got my sympathy. I think we need a firmer free-trade agreement. But you know how trade politics are...

We've dealt with Republicans before. For 75% of the last 30 years we've dealt with Republicans. We've never dealt with this kind of Republican, though. And the Euros have real problems with him too.

I'm referring both to his interesting take on world affairs and his 19th century view of tarriff policies, by the way. Both of which were becoming evident before terrorist attacks. He seemed more comfortable dealing with 3rd world despots than with leaders of industrialised countries. Perception is that he can't stand dealing with anybody who'll ask him to compromise.

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

You're missing my main point. I'm not saying that the red brigades would take over Europe. But that the buzz was different. Very few predicted the collapse of cimmunism by 1990. Not those on the left either. They said we needed to learn to live with the Sovs and expected them to be around for a while.
The mood in 1979 was one of a real fear of nuclear war and of being backed into one. By 1985 that was gone.

Right, and I'm saying the fear was unjustified. Can't really take credit for saving Europe from a threat which wasn't there in the first place, and which you did your best to create paranoia about.

I'm not trying to say that the Left was any more visionary than the Right was...

DinoDoc · January 14, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
?

Anti-terror laws that make the Patriot Act look good.

Or was AH talking about invasion in response to terrorist attack?

Main_Brain · January 14, 2003, 23:50

Riiight the Civil War

~20 Years later and Texas fought with the Confederation. I remember now.

Dauphin · January 14, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Anti-terror laws that make the Patriot Act look good.

Start a thread comparing the two.

KrazyHorse · January 14, 2003, 23:51

Right, and remember how they were abused?

Dauphin · January 14, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Or was AH talking about invasion in response to terrorist attack?

I thought it a reference to Iraq.

The Vagabond · January 14, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Alexander's Horse, this reads like a liberal/leftist wish list. The question really should be is why the rest of the West shifted so strongly to the left after WWII while the US did not.

The answer to that is simple. The rest of the Western world has been developing in a kind of natural preserve. But the results of their development are nice, one should admit.

Ned · January 14, 2003, 23:54

I think Sava has a point. Europe directly suffered from WWII, while the US seemed to prosper from it.

Perhaps this explains it all.

monkspider · January 14, 2003, 23:56

AH makes an interesting point, I have been wondering about things along these lines as well.

AnnC · January 14, 2003, 23:57

Some of the comments in this thread remind me of an article I read in The Atlantic Monthly several months ago: The Case Against Europe by Walter Russell Mead.